User:Bovlb/Don't repeat yourself

“ The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. ” — Albert Einstein

A Wikipedian seeks help from another editor instead of just running around in circles.

We do better when many hands are involved.

There are many times in your Wikipedia career when you will find yourself about to do the same thing that you did before, knowing that it did not succeed before, and yet hoping it will succeed this time. A better way is to try something different. Often it is even better to pass the baton on to another editor.

There are many reasons why is is a good idea to have many hands in involved in a (potentially controversial) action:

• It shows your opponent that your position has support. Wikipedia operates on consensus, not persistence. Having multiple people tell them they are wrong might just be enough to get them to change.
• Another editor may be able to communicate better why your position is right. You might turn your opponent into an ally.
• Another editor may be able to suggest a third path that keeps everyone happy.
• Another editor may be able to show you an aspect of the situation that you hadn't thought about. Just possibly, you might not always be right.
• It makes it less likely that your opponent will feel hounded or harassed. It might seem like it doesn't matter who does something, but it really does change how the action is perceived.

The rest of this essay gives some specific examples of repeated actions with suggestions for alternatives. Most of the things advocated against would actually be within policy, but not everything that is permissible is beneficial. So you can't force someone else to follow this advice, but you can lead by example by unilaterally following it yourself.

Reverting article changes

You make a change to an article but someone reverts you. Maybe your change will stick if you make it again with a more firmly-worded edit summary.

That's not a good idea. For one thing, it breaks the BRD (be bold, revert, discuss) principle. For another, the edit summary is a place to describe what you did and why, and not a place to send pointed messages to other editors. A better approach would be to do one or more of:

• Start a talk page discussion
• Try to devise a compromise change
• Add sources that support your change
• Bring in other people (see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE)

The last one is key because, if you find other people who will support your change, then the other editor is more likely to respond positively. Even if the third editor makes exactly the same change that you did, the fact that multiple editors disagree with then may give the reverter pause: it's no longer just one person arguing with them, but a consensus against them. Don't discount the effect this can have.

And a third editor may have an idea that you didn't. They might think of a convincing way to explain why your version is better. They may even have a third version of the content that both you and the reverter think is superior.

Maybe it's the other way around. You see a bad change to an article and you revert it, but the other editor just reverts their change back in. BRD is clearly on your side here: a third reversion will bring the other editor to the discussion page for sure.

Unfortunately, life doesn't usually work like that. You're far better off trying one of the options above.

Suppose you try to bring in other people, but you just can't find someone who agrees with you. Now it's back on you. You're the only person who can act. You have to make the same change again.

This might be the right moment to reflect on whether your own position is definitely correct. We put a lot of time and effort into crafting content and sometimes that can cause us to feel overly invested in it. Remember this is a collaborative project and we all have something to learn.

Participating in a discussion

It can sometimes be wiser to let other people take turns in a discussion

You're invested in a discussion, say a deletion of an article you wrote, and lots of people are posting misguided arguments, often the same one. Obviously you can fix this and turn it around by engaging each of the users in a separate discussion, tailoring a restatement of your position for each one.

Unfortunately, this often ends up annoying people and makes them more likely to discount your opinion, even if you have a valid point. Repeating yourself does not always give your words more weight in the eyes of others. In particular, repeating yourself will take a toll on you too, causing you frustration, which in turn might make you phrase things in a less diplomatic way that will not help you to persuade others to your position. See also Hold the pepper and Don't bludgeon the process.

Monitoring problem users

This meerkat will watch you carefully, but it's smart enough to let the others take a turn too.

You notice that a user has a pattern of bad edits (say copyright violations or misinterpreting sources). You spend hours going through their contribution history, reverting changes and marking articles for deletion. Clearly a user like that is going to be a repeat offender in the future, so you make a note to check on their contributions again in a few weeks to see if they have made more work for you.

The moment you get into long-term monitoring of a user, you're at risk of being accused of harassment, no matter how justified your position. The best way to deal with a user who keeps getting things wrong is to equip them to get it right. This involves explaining things to them, not only in a way they can understand, but also in a way they find easy to accept. Humans find it hard to be told they are wrong, and it is often necessary to find a gentle way of breaking it to them. The ideal solution would involve the problem user in detecting, correcting, and preventing the problems. If you find yourself piling complaints onto the same editor week after week, that means not only that they are continually making bad edits, but also that you are doing something wrong in helping them to do better. Although this is clearly not always possible, we would rather turn problem editors into productive contributors than drive them away from the project.

Even when you're at the point of trawling through the user's history looking for problems, if they are an active and eager editor, maybe you can think of a way to engage them in finding and fixing problems in their contributions. Try explaining a problem and asking them if they might have had the same trouble elsewhere.

If you cannot find a way to persuade a user that their past edits have problems, and that their future edits need improvement, then we are left with three possibilities:

• The editor is irredeemable and must be thrown away.
• Maybe you're missing something, and the edits are less problematic than you think.
• Maybe you're just not able to explain the problems in the right way.

The first is a terrible conclusion to have to reach about a fellow human being. We should never rush to reach that conclusion. For both the second and third, it's probably a good idea to bring in another editor to help. They might have some novel ideas for dealing with the situation. They might have the key to communicating effectively with this specific user. You might learn something.

See also "Warning type 3: “People have been made to feel hounded”" on meta:Trust_and_Safety/Resources/What_is_a_conduct_warning.

Imposing sanctions

As an admin, you were forced to impose a block on a user. As soon as they complete that block, they're back to their old tricks. Maybe a longer block will sort them out. Maybe you need to go to an indefinite block and make them grovel to be unblocked.

Our policy is explicit that having sanctioned a user in the past does not make you "involved" in the future, but I argue that it can still be better to step back and let another admin deal with it. Maybe they'll do exactly what you would have done. That's still a win, because the problem user is facing a consensus rather than one rouge admin. Most likely the other admin will be stricter or more lenient. That still a win, not only because it's still consensus to some extent, but also because the user gets a reversion to the mean: if different admins respond with different severity, then users deserve to experience the average response. And maybe the other admin will find a different way to deal with the user. If they're effective in reforming the user, then that's the biggest win of all: We get a productive Wikipedian out of it, and maybe you'll learn a new trick yourself. After all, the one thing you know for certain is that your previous intervention proved ineffective.

There is a discussion on a noticeboard about a problem editor you have dealt with before. You're the expert on dealing with this user. You know how much of a recidivist they are. You need to jump in, guide the debate, and impose new sanctions as expeditiously as possible.

While it may be true that you are the expert on this user, there is also evidence that whatever you have tried in the past has not worked. By all means contribute your knowledge and even make recommendations, but resist the temptation to dominate the discussion, and be very hesitant to be the one to pull the trigger.

Another admin blocked a top contributor, a clear over-reaction that failed to consider the wider context. This contributor might have a few rough edges, but they are a net positive for the project, so it's crazy to prevent them from contributing. Obviously they need to be unblocked as quickly as possible, and the other admin must be rebuked.

Well, sometimes this might be the right thing to do, but it should be done with great hesitancy. And it's probably better to find a compromise solution rather than an instant unblock. If you find yourself doing this a lot, you may want to rethink your priorities. If you find yourself coming to the aid of the same "top contributor" more than once, then you may need to step back.

Once there is a spider stuck in it, it may be time to pass on the mop.

You handed out a well-deserved block to an editor who is driving away other editors with their repeated incivility. They've had plenty of warnings and opportunities to get their act together, but somehow they just keep getting away with it. Suddenly you find yourself facing a storm of protest from their friends and, even worse, another admin has decided to unblock them over your objections.

Generally, it's a bad idea for one admin to "own" a block. Wielding the mop is a collective duty, and you should always be willing to pass the mop along to your fellow admins. Having said that, rapid reversal of a block (or other admin action) sends a strong message about what behaviour people can get away with, and it will make it harder for the next admin to make a similar call. Wheel warring is not an option, of course. You could escalate the situation to an appropriate notice board (if it isn't there already). If you do, please concentrate on the issue of the original block, and not on the offence of reversing your action. (In fact, you could clear the air by explicitly waiving any claim on that issue. Think of block-unblock-discuss as the admin version of bold-revert-discuss.) Explain why the behaviour was problematic and why the user should be blocked and then shut up. Don't bludgeon the discussion, but constrain yourself to responding to specific questions. Let the community reach consensus. Maybe they will reject your argument. Maybe someone will reinstate your block. Or maybe someone will come up with a third path. If your position is sound, trust the community to support you.